I think Sheldrake's reasoning for the change in C is much simpler.....it's a cycle.

Why would Tom think the discovery of Quantum physics in the 1920's led to an increase between1920 & 1940.......how does an extra 20m/s increase in this period facilitate quantum physics experiments?And if that was the reason why did C decrease again in the 1960's..........did we just not need that extra 20m/sanymore....?

What does makes sense imo are cycles.............such as sinusoidal waves,like hertz cycles.

The analogy to movies/screens is confusing.......as they are two different mediums.

There is the screen you are watching(tv or pc) and the movie that was shot.Watching 60fps shots on a tvgives you slow motion Not fast motion,10fps shots gives you fast motion Not slow motion.

The screen has it's own resolution dependent on the amount of pixels in the screen,resolution of the screen has nothingto do with the refresh cycle.........the refresh cycle 60 or 120 hertz is the flicker rate of the screen.You cannot increase the resolution of a 1920x1080 pixel screen by increasing the flicker rate from 60 to 120 hertz......you just decrease perceivedflicker.

You can however increase the resolution of the movie by increasing the fps rate you shoot at,but only by playing back thosefps at the same rate you recorded it at.For example shooting a 60 fps and playing back at 60fps,recording at 30fps increases resolution,shooting at 60fps but playing back/recording at 30fps gives you slow motion but with no increase in resolution.

Last edited by doma on Fri Sep 27, 2013 7:30 am, edited 2 times in total.

Sheldrake's idea of this being cyclical is in fact simpler. You will however have to admit that this idea is just speculation as we have not observed such cycles. Reasoning far ahead of your data is always just speculation.

"The analogy to movies/screens is confusing.......as they are two different mediums." The concept of an analogy is that they do provide insight into and between things which are different. From the Merriam-Webster on line dictionary:

Quote:

anal·o·gy noun \ə-ˈna-lə-jē\

: a comparison of two things based on their being alike in some way

: the act of comparing two things that are alike in some way

Resolution of a screen does make a difference in the refresh rate if there is a fundamental limitation on computational capacity. For a higher pixel area screen, the computational load is higher. If you maintain computational load on the processor constant, the refresh rate must decrease to accommodate the higher pixel area. On your 'desktop computer', you might invest in a better video card with more capacity to match and keep up with the increased load from a 'bigger monitor'. For a VR, 'video cards' are not off the shelf, over the Internet, get it tomorrow by UPS items.

And Tom's ideas you will also have to admit are also pure speculation....at least Sheldrake's cycle ideadoesn't have a contradiction already baked in.One cannot observe an increase in the 1920-1930's &then a decrease some 20-30 years later and then speculate it may have something to do with humans advancingtechnology.........

"Resolution of a screen does make a difference in the refresh rate if there is a fundamental limitation on computational capacity."

The resolution of the screen is determined by the amount of pixels on the screen,the resolution of the source materialis determined at which resolution it was shot/recorded at & the resolution of the medium playing it back.....limitations on fundamental computational capacity can effect anything and everything.

Why would Tom think the discovery of Quantum physics in the 1920's led to an increase between1920 & 1940.......how does an extra 20m/s increase in this period facilitate quantum physics experiments?And if that was the reason why did C decrease again in the 1960's..........did we just not need that extra 20m/sanymore....?

doma wrote:

One cannot observe an increase in the 1920-1930's &then a decrease some 20-30 years later and then speculate it may have something to do with humans advancingtechnology.........

Tom talks about possible reasons for a change as would be explainable in his model.He also elaborates on why and how it is explainable that c might go up or down slightly.(about 15 minutes into the interview).

What you are possibly missing here is:A slightly faster and then a slightly slower c does not imply that the resolution first was increased 1920 and then decreased again 1940(or at about that time - it is just hearsay for me and I'll just keep with those dates).It could just as well mean that the resolution was increased twice, first in 1920 and then again in 1940.

c is just a ratio.

It can be thought of as the ratio, the quotient of delta x / delta t (delta x over delta t).Both values cannot be changed by arbitrary values- to increase delta x, for instance, which can be thought of as the "spatial" resolution of the simulation,this increase needs to be done in all 3 dimensions.Think maybe of a cube of a certain size made of smaller cubes.It can be constructed out of 10x10x10 small cubes (1000 all in all)or it can be constructed out of 12x12x12 yet smaller cubes (1728 all in all)or it can be constructed out of 17x17x17 yet smaller cubes (4913 all in all)- to increase the spatial resolution of the whole cube.

Now delta t (go from one little cube to the next) needs to be adjusted in order for the quotient (which is c) to stay about the same.This can't be done exactly (to keep the value of c exactly the same) but only by whole units the computer can handle.So: everytime the spatial resolution is changed for instance, the ratio might change slightly up or down because the resolution in time needs to be adjusted, too.A change of c is indicative of a change in the model but it is - on the face of it - not clear whether the resolution was increased or decreased.

In this frame of thought I'd suppose the resolution was increased twice.

My fault!!.......i went back to review what Sheldrake originally said ......i stated it ass about face.

Between 1928-1945 C Dropped by 20km/s ........and then after 1945 started going back up again.So somehow Quantum physics experiments led to a decrease in C not an increase.

Anyhow i fail to see a possible link as to why Q.M would lead to a decrease in C in that period followed by C rising againafter 1945....

At this time Sheldrake's "possible" cycles makes more sense to me than Tom's possible reasons.

The rest of the interview was good......it seems Tom will soon be addressing dogma gravity...good to see himaddressing all the dogmas of science!

Tom says that nobody knows still why two masses should attract one another in our PMR....(gravity).....wellcharged bodies attract and repel each other.....perhaps someone can send Tom some links for the ElectricUniverse theory for him to have a look at?

... Anyhow i fail to see a possible link as to why Q.M would lead to a decrease in C in that period followed by C rising againafter 1945....

At this time Sheldrake's "possible" cycles makes more sense to me than Tom's possible reasons. ...

I think I got that - to talk about the principle that might be behind it, it is not important that the dates where off.

The premise (as a possibility) was: once "we" discovered QM and did more and more precise measurements, the system (our PMR) might have had approached it's limits in terms of smallest possible length or smallest possible time interval to render.So it might have been changed - to allow for more detail, more precise measurements at a level never ever before needed.

Such a change towards "higher resolution" could mean a decreasing c just as well as an increasing one!

The smallest unit of length physics currently thinks of is Planck's length - and we are far from being able to measure that directly.In the VR concept, c can be thougt of as the relation between smallest possible spatial resolution over smallest possible temporal resolution.Any change in one requires change in the other - and still the ratio will not stay exactly the same.

Whether it is this approach that is closer to actuality or Sheldrakes is just speculation - since both are just speculations about the observable change in c from time to time.Tom attempted an explanation whereas Sheldrake did not. He doesn't have the model that Tom has to go that far.

Please explain something to us. There has been no mention of a continuing cycling of the changing of the speed of light. There has been this one period during which as I understand it, 2 changes have occurred, representing a total of 3 different values. At least this is what I remember seeing stated without going back and watching the video and reading everything over again. These have been 'step' changes as in the values changed by a very small amount at two different times. There has been no evidence of a cyclical changing presented nor even mentioned. A cyclical change is by definition a continuing phenomena which while it can be only perhaps a change between 2 or 3 states, still must change on a continuing basis to be describable as being cyclical in nature. These however are described as discrete step changes, isolated in time, and not continuing on as we are capable of observing the speed of light more accurately as science progresses.

So what exactly makes you prefer a 'cyclical' explanation which has not been observed to another explanation by Tom Campbell based upon his MBT description of our reality? And keep in mind that stating that something is cyclical, presuming that it actually is, says nothing what so ever about why it occurs. It is an 'explanation' that explains nothing. If it were a cyclical phenomenon, then the question is still open as to why the cycles occur.

The only conclusion that I can reach, putting this in the context of the rest of what you post, is that your main concern is to disagree with Tom. It isn't that Shelldrake has presented a better explanation than Tom. As I have pointed out, his explanation is that it is cyclical, but undemonstrated as such, and furthermore to state that something is cyclical provides no explanation of why it is cyclical. So you appear to be picking the explanation as preferable that has no actual observation as to existing and no real content and no basis in QM or our understanding of the PMR VR or of this as a 'physical reality' simply because it is "Not Tom Campbell's explanation".

Is this a rational approach to achieving a better understanding or approaching truth?

" There has been no mention of a continuing cycling of the changing of the speed of light."

There has been mention that perhaps C goes through a Cycle,a natural variation.....it was made by the only scientistwho actually bothered to go through the data,but as the data was Fixed as a constant in 1972 thattheory cannot be confirmed.

"So what exactly makes you prefer a 'cyclical' explanation which has not been observed to another explanation"

What has or has not been observed can only come from the person who actually observed the data.....which you haven't......is this a rational approach by you to science & truth??

"The only conclusion that I can reach, putting this in the context of the rest of what you post, is that your main concern is to disagree with Tom."

I explained some months ago on this board when the subject first came up that this variation in C Could be explained by MBT,and in fact fitted in with the current MBT model........that was until i heard Toms recent explanation.

Thanks for your comments.....so thoughtful and helpful and fair........as always!:)

The part about speed of light capping how far in the cosmos we can interact is very interesting and got me thinking quite a bit. Assuming this reality is indeed virtual, isn't instant teleportation a possibility? In games, all you have to do is change an object's "position" property to make it "move" instantaneously to that new position in the next VR tick. In this case, the speed of light would not be a constraint anymore. Beside the knowledge limitation, are there safeguards in place to prevent entities within the VR from doing this/developing that kind of technology? It seems not, as we're already messing with quantum entanglement and teleporting information...

_________________I hear, and I forget. I see, and I remember. I do, and I understand.

I particularly liked Tom's idea of light speed being the "bars on the playpen" - and how that could be adjusted as our collective QoC increases. It blew my mind and gave me an even bigger perspective on how this VR could be run...

It's always fun to find a belief of mine that I didn't even know I had.

Assuming this reality is indeed virtual, isn't instant teleportation a possibility? In games, all you have to do is change an object's "position" property to make it "move" instantaneously to that new position in the next VR tick. In this case, the speed of light would not be a constraint anymore.

Tom has already described this in numerous instances and contexts. It's just not a matter of building the machine to do this. You already have the basic requirement for doing this: your mind as an IUOC. Tom has described going to another PMR and manifesting a body there or just being a disembodied intelligence there observing. Your mind, in this kind of travel, is not limited by the speed of light. It is however limited by your developed ability to so perform. This has been among the historically claimed abilities, after death, of Jesus, appearing to various disciples but not always indicating the presence of a full materialization. No way to measure the speed of travel there but obviously much faster than the then speed limit on donkey back.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum